The Glass Ceiling: Women are under-represented in Management and Leadership Positions
Gender equality is a social issue that has invited the attention of policy makers as an important part of social justice. There are legislations enacted to give equal status to women in every area including the work place. Australian legislative body has passed a law in 1984, strictly specifying that no discrimination may be made against women at workplace regarding promotion, compensation and other facilities. Known as the sex discrimination act, it recommends legal action against discrimination on the basis of gender, sexuality, marital status, family responsibilities or pregnancy. It advocates for equal opportunity, status and respect enjoyed by their male counterparts.
However, many researchers are of the view that there is a vast difference between theoretical guidelines and practices; an unseen prejudice against women is prevalent in all workplaces in Australia. Women employees have complained of being discriminated against by their peers in workplaces and although not pronounced there are evidences of biases all over, especially at the higher ranks of the organization hierarchy. Legal provisions for equal opportunity have not translated into reality for all women, particularly those aspiring to senior managerial positions (Strachan 235).
Discrimination against women has significant implications for both Human Resource Management and diversity. Discrimination definitely has an adverse effect on performance as not getting due recognition of one’s efforts acts as a serious deterrent to performance. Discriminatory behavior such as incivility at workplace produces stress (Cortina, 56) and may result in negative organizational behavior like absenteeism, conflicts and disloyalty. If HR personnel are keen on improving employee performance they must take sex discrimination seriously and implement policies that discourage such behavior within the organization. All appraisal and promotion policies should be based strictly on merit and extend equal opportunities to all employees irrespective of their gender. Employing more women in the workplace imparts diversity to it which is now being considered as a possible catalyst for enhancing performance. Recruiting more women in the workplace may bring out dormant attributes like cooperation and support from employees. A diverse workforce presents higher participation in brainstorming exercises contributing to a greater organizational performance, effectiveness and profitability (Shen Jie, et al.236). The authors argue that at strategic level, a management practice that promotes diversity is crucial for organizational success. In order to eliminate psychological barriers to diversity, management’s stand on the issue must be reflected in organizational culture, values and visions. This report investigates the belief that women are victims of discrimination, the HR areas where women experience discrimination and suggests possible remedies which can be helpful in addressing the issue.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Recognition of Women as an independent entity and conferring the status of complete equality is as recent as 1984in Australia. Prior to this legislation, another law passed in 1970 had directed that women be given equal pay for equal work which ended the open discrimination but women were still considered inferior and suffered covert discrimination in the workplace. But it was still an improvement over the status of women in 1950s where there it was legally sanctioned to segregate women for only certain jobs and were still paid less than the males in same position.
‘Marriage bar’ was a code that restricted married women from getting permanent jobs in the public service and also in some private Firms. In the 40s married women were confined to their homes as a wife and a mother but during the Second World War they were urged to get employment as there was a shortage of male workers. Gradually there was a change in the employment scenario with the increase in the number of working women. Finally in 1970 they were accorded the benefit of equal work – equal payment law but only a few actually benefitted from it as there were conditions attached. Marriage bar was eliminated in some areas but it still existed in many public organizations. It was only in 1984 that women actually were treated equal by law under the sex discrimination act. Yet many claim that there is still a prejudice against women at the work place and employers are hesitant to appoint women in managerial positions. Although they have more options for employment after the legislation and may enjoy better facilities, still it is not easy to change the mindset of people that existed for six decades against women employees. There are many instances narrated in the employment history of Australia that presents discriminatory behaviour towards women like being passed over for promotion, not given decision making powers or autonomy even at high positions.
Discrimination against Women in Leadership and Managerial positions
Strachan (126) has observed that although more women have university degrees than men in Australia, the leadership and managerial positions are still predominantly occupied by men. This implies that although legislations have ended overt discrimination, there exists reluctance in organizations in Australian public and private services to accept women in commanding positions. This is attributed to the cultural inertia that existed for decades. Employers still believe that women do not have the necessary faculties to take strategic decisions. Even if they have the necessary academic qualifications and experience, appointing a woman in leadership positions could be a risky proposition and invite hostility from male subordinates who still do not like taking orders from a woman. Many employers are still not convinced that women have the ability to handle a crisis or to take tough decisions. They are under the notion that women are guided by emotions while taking crucial decisions that may compromise the interests of the organization. Moreover women are often burdened by personal and household responsibilities and cannot see things objectively. Married women may remain absent occasionally because of pregnancy or maternity issues and cannot travel frequently which may be necessary in high positions. Some employers feel that women have to be provided more security compared to men especially in police force, demanding provisions for extra funds. Women are still not preferred in Australian armed forces or field jobs because of the belief that women are not suited for the tough conditions demanded by such jobs and may become a liability for others. Another factor that hinders the employment of women in managerial positions is their own reluctance because they fear that additional responsibilities would restrict them from executing their family responsibilities. Hence employers both claim that although they do not doubt the capabilities of women as managers or leaders, the practical implications of appointing a woman in these positions have prevented them from doing so.
There may be some grain of truth in the observation but the modern woman refutes them. For them the organizational culture can be conditioned to accept women in managerial positions, if the top management is committed enough and shows faith in a woman’s capabilities. If both private and public services formulate a policy in which it is mandatory to employ at least 50% women in managerial positions through promotions internally and recruitment externally, the employees get the message that the management is keen on the equality issue and condemns discrimination at workplace. Issues of harassment and bullying women employees if taken seriously and actions be initiated against the culprits, delivers the message that the Management is committed towards protecting the rights of women. Many activists and even HR experts on diversity issue are convinced that emotional softness exhibited by women may actually be an advantage where they can assess the situation on humanitarian grounds and deal with crisis more effectively. A study on the Women Directors in boardroom shows that there are significant inputs in board decisions from the women that impact performance (Adams & Ferreira 293). The emotional factor endows them with a more considerate attitude and can not only diminish public criticism of handling a crisis but also encourage organizational commitment from employees who may have been spared strict actions from a female boss on emotional grounds.
Employed women who aspire to lead organizations are of the view that they are quite capable of accepting challenges in work and can take tough decisions according to the situation. Even in jobs that demand tough survival instincts, women contend that they are trained and mentally conditioned to face the hardships associated with jobs in armed forces and other field jobs. In spite of these arguments, there exists a glass ceiling that limits the career advancement of women to achieve managerial roles, not visible to public eye but undeniably there.
Human Resource functions and Discrimination against Women
Evaluation of issues concerning women has revealed that women are still subjected to unfair treatment when it comes to assigning them more responsible roles as managers or leaders even after the legislations that accord them rights to equal status at work. This is primarily because of prejudices and reluctance of employers who are not committed enough to incorporate these directives in their organizational values. These discrimination issues extend to the HRM areas also where women are not given the same opportunities for career advancement as their male counterparts. This report addresses two areas of Human Resource Management where women may experience discrimination and offers suggestions on the possible remedies.
APPRAISAL AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Performance appraisal of employees is a HR practice undertaken at regular intervals to assess the performance of an employee, the factors that act as motivators and his potential to handle more responsibility. It is obvious that a good performance appraisal should be free of biases and should be based on the policy of providing equal opportunities to all employees. Unfortunately this is not followed in practice. Most women in workplaces have experienced unfair treatment in performance appraisal and management when considered for senior positions. For the same performance rating women are passed over for promotions or increments in favor of male colleagues. Researchers have concluded that women have less probability of getting a promotion compared to men even if it is not related to a pay increase (Blau & DeVaro 547). They are given due credit only if their performances are extraordinarily great and clearly surpasses that of the men in same positions. This implies that women have to prove their capabilities many times more than men to win a promotion in favor of her male counterpart. Statistics say that Women are grossly underrepresented in management, especially senior management. For example, there has been little or no increase in the percentage of women in senior positions in ASX companies since 2004 (Strachan 126). Women may have been provided more opportunities for entry in an organization but these opportunities become limited in managerial ranks.
Ideally legislations direct that women should not be compared with men at all in performance appraisal exercises. Instead there should be some standard benchmarks for evaluating performances for both male and female employees in the same rank and the more deserving should be rewarded. Also the appraisal process should be transparent, employees should be aware of the performance rating standards.
It has also been observed that while male employees are regularly given inputs about their performance for improvement and projected as future leaders; female personnel are seldom given feedbacks for improvement, rather may be reprimanded or even replaced for inadequate performance. Such discriminatory policies and practices like withholding appraisal feedback from women workers and deception are instances of organizational injustice resulting in stress and affect employee health (Fujishiro & Heaney 498). Sometimes the appraisers set almost impossible targets for women deliberately in comparison to men to justify their poor evaluation of women. Evaluators knowingly promote men simply because of the apprehension that women may not to be able to handle the pressure of work at senior levels and may not be able to maintain the work- life balance as they have additional responsibilities to shoulder. This may hamper them from doing justice to their work place responsibilities. However a deserving woman will also know her priorities given the chance, and will manage both her roles with equanimity.
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Human Resource development is a term used for imparting training to new and existing employees to equip them with necessary skills to perform a job efficiently. The training for senior level managers consists of assigning them different roles for making strategic decisions in future in addition to giving them inputs through seminars, classroom coaching, mentoring and participation in brainstorming sessions. Experts on discrimination have stated that women are victims of favouritism in HRD too. While male managers undergoing training and development are closely monitored for progress, women do not enjoy the same privilege. On the contrary their responses during training sessions are not appreciated and post training performances are often ignored if not disparaged downright. Employers specifically provide mentoring to promising male managers but no formal organizational mentoring is facilitated for female managers. Discrimination of this type often demoralise sincere and deserving candidates and result in abandoning their efforts altogether. Researchers have inferred that lack of mentoring was one of the significant barriers in their advancement as managers especially in international management (Insch, et al.21).
Recommendations and Conclusions
It can be derived from the report that although the female work force in Australia has achieved the equality status in opportunities and pay equity after a long struggle, the equality is only superficial. Women are still subjected to discrimination in leadership and managerial positions partially because there is still a resistance in the mindset of males about taking orders from a female boss and partially because employers believe that women can’t do justice to their dual roles of a home maker as well as a corporate leader. Also women may themselves be reluctant to accept a leadership role in her job as she may have to compromise on her responsibilities to her family.
The implications of discrimination in the area of Human Resource management is manifold because experts have agreed that a diverse managerial work force can increase the productivity as inputs have multiple dimensions and brings out latent talents helpful for performance. But discrimination may have a detrimental effect on performance and human capital because it may demoralise workers and produce stress. Studies have indicated that Australian women have experienced discrimination in jobs and human resource functions. Two of the functions have been examined in this report and it is inferred that discrimination still exists in this area.
Recommendations- The studies on the subject have indicated that if organizational leaders are committed to eliminate issues of discrimination, they must introduce certain policies in HR areas where a certain percentage of the employees should be women in all positions including board of directors. Human resource Management should take the necessary steps to implement the policy. This would also change the mindset of the employees and proper training and development would prepare the women to handle the work pressure efficiently.
In order to maintain good work life balance women should learn to delegate responsibilities both at home and in the work place.
Diversity training may reduce resistance to women and facilitate their inclusion in managerial levels (Palluck 582)
Although the glass ceiling still exist it is heartening to see that researches have brought attention to the issue and efforts from employers and employees will produce commendable results in the area.
References
Adams, Renée B., and Daniel Ferreira "Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance" Journal of financial economics94.2 (2009): 291-309
Blau, Francine D., and Jed DeVaro "New evidence on gender differences in promotion rates: An empirical analysis of a sample of new hires." Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 46.3 (2007): 511-550
Cortina, Lilia M. "Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations." Academy of Management Review 33.1 (2008): 55-75
Fujishiro, Kaori, and Catherine A. Heaney "Justice at work, job stress, and employee health" Health Education & Behaviour (2007)
Insch, Gary S., Nancy McIntyre, and Nancy K. Napier "The expatriate glass ceiling: The second layer of glass." Journal of Business Ethics 83.1 (2008): 19-28.
Paluck, Elizabeth Levy. "Diversity training and intergroup contact: A call to action research." Journal of Social Issues 62.3 (2006): 577-595.
Shen, Jie, et al. "Managing diversity through human resource management: An international perspective and conceptual framework." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 20.2 (2009): 235-251.
Strachan, Glenda. "Still working for the man? Women's employment experiences in Australia since 1950." Australian Journal of Social Issues45.1 (2010): 117.
